About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
or john kerry or someone else, there will be questions about a new internationalism, not a liberal intervention that isn't about bombs, bases, intervention and rebuilding america's relationship with the world and dealing with the problems of our time like climate crisis, nuclear proliferation, hunger and how to lead to a global economic policy. it's issues we have not done a good job in dealing with, nor will it. >> the trouble with that, though, is that we actually don't have the money as a result of the choices of the people who would be voting to confirm or not confirm ambassador rice. if you only have the money for the military. the pentagon is well funded. your regional commander could go out. i agree with your critique. the way to get to the source of the critique is not that, you know, susan rice or anybody else doesn't understood what you said. it's to follow the money and give the u.s. the tools. >> shouldn't we rethink where the money goes? one of the reasons diplomatic security is underfunded. the cuts between the state department. the balance between state, diplomacy an
that in any confirmation hearing, whether it's susan rice or john kerry, there will be questions raised about a new internationalism. one that is not a neoliberal or liberal interventionism that isn't about bombs, bases, intervention. but about rebuilding america's relationship with the world and dealing with the major problems of our time, like climate crisis, nuclear proliferation, hunger and how america can lead a global economic recovery. these are issues liberal interventionism has not done a good job dealing with. >> the trouble with that, though, is that we actually don't have the money as a result of the choices of the people who would be voting to confirm or not confirm ambassador rice. if you only have the money for the military solution because the pentagon is well funded and your regional commander has much more ability to go out and act on behalf of the u.s. than the ambassador does. so i agree with your critique, but the way to get to the source of the critique is not that susan rice doesn't understand, but it's to follow the money and -- >> but should we rethink our priorities
of sympathy with her, the way they actually probably do with john kerry, her potential rival to secretary of state, having taken a bunch of delegation trips with mccain around the world. i don't think it should be disqualifying if obama decides to choose her as the next secretary of state. she's the ambassador to u.n. she's not in charge of intelligence and not in charge of intelligence reports. it is simultaneously true they scrub the reports she got of any al qaeda mention. that was probably done within the intelligence community herself. her job as u.n. ambassador was to tell what that intelligence report said on the sunday shows and that's what she did. i don't think there's any reason to disqualify her based on anything that's happened in the last year. and, frankly, i guess i'd cut her a little slack for some of the political attacks she's taken. i guess i don't agree with graham and mccain on this one. but if you're going to be a diplomat, you should probably be diplomatic all the way around. ( laughter ) you're going to come in for a little criticism. >> benghazi has almost take
go for an easier option, and that would be senator john kerry of massachusetts. he's someone who could, relatively speaking, glide through the senate with ease compared to susan rice at this point. it all depends on how benghazi shapes up. if it's looking like there's not going to be a big investigation, then susan rice looks like the more likely option. it all depends on how big of a fight he wants in the senate. rick: how wig of a story -- how big of a story do you think it is going to turn out to be, bebb ghazi? -- benghazi? i've heard people compare it to watergate given that no one died from watergate. as we take a look at what we know, what information we have available to us, what do you think is the potential here with this story? >> it depends because we've got a split congress. in the senate, it's run by democrats. they were having closed-door investigations last week, and a lot of democrats told me that they saw this as something that would be difficult to get to the bottom of, full of vague information and, you know, this whole fog of war thing. will we ever really kn
. after the benghazi debacle i heard more it would be john kerry because a lot of people rightly recognized that sending susan rice up there would turn it into a benghazi circus where everyone will want to be talking about benghazi. we had the press conference where the president, he's clearly very dug in on this. when i say it's arrogant, it's clear that he has just either complete contempt for the media, or just believes that he can just do whatever he wants because the idea that he would send her up there, put her under oath and have her be forced to answer these questions, and i think mccain is right, it's not about susan rice it's about the president. but he's going to put her in the line of fire. i think it just shows arrogance. it's him basically saying, look we clearly misled people, nobody seems to care so i'm going to just send her up there. martha: do you believe he intends to do that, that nothing has changed or he's been emboldened in recent weeks? >> i really read that press conference to mean he's going to nominate her. i've asked around, i don't think anybody know
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)